The tides of human affairs rarely rise and fall to a regular timetable, unlike those of the oceans with their predictable lunar rhythms. Rather, the mass consciousness of nation states ebbs and flows in fits and starts, with long periods of slack water followed by furious surges. Here, now, on the eve of the third year of the second decade of the 21st century we find ourselves yet again on the cusp of such a surge. In greater numbers we are awakening to the sobering reality that all but a few of the freedoms we for so long and so carelessly took for granted have been spirited away during the times of affluence and indulgence, and that we in the West have degenerated into little more than a collective of embryonic police states.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“All men are created equal.”— Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, 1776, in refutation of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”— Lord Acton, historian, philosopher and moralist in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”— George Orwell, ‘1984’

“First we shape our institutions, then they shape us. And when those institutions break the covenant we must reshape them, as often as is necessary.”— Seneca III

In Britain and continental Europe functional democracy is dying, and it is dying for three specific reasons:

1.

The first is the misconception that arises from the well meaning assertion that all men are created equal; well, perhaps they are, but much as we would yearn for it to be so all men do not progress equally, neither spiritually nor socially, nor do they conduct themselves in equally reasonable harmony for each is the product of his or her own environment and nurture, their culture, and each the tool of and for their chosen system of interpersonal conduct.

2.

When, within a body politic, its parasites and predators come to outnumber the net contributors, a system that grants an unqualified universal franchise to all reaches a critical point. When it confers the right to vote irrespective of whether there is an obvious commitment to the common good, any governing body thus elected will be unable to protect and sustain the rights and physical safety of the law-abiding and productive elements of that society — the net contributors, that is; those upon whose shoulders falls the full weight of that failure.

3.

Finally, the coup de grâce is delivered by the utter venality of the self-perpetuating elites, our career politicians. They cling leech-like to the instruments and privileges of power by importing and then promoting the support of violent, primitive, alien cultures that do not, indeed cannot, accept democracy in any form, but use it merely to forward their own agendas and that of the elites. The Divine Right of Kings has not gone away; the heads that wear the crown now merely bear a mandate from an ever more privileged and aggressive force, neither of us nor for us, whose vanguard has already infiltrated every nook and cranny of our legislatures, our executives, our lands and our daily lives.

Essentially, we have been occupied, and this is the defining condition without which a future of revolt, and eventually revolution, would not be approaching our near horizon. But now our circumstances are so changed, so completely parlous, that such a justifiable response may before long be initiated and perhaps even implemented by an emerging entity, the newly disenfranchised.

And, with the death of democracy, the only mechanism left by which such an adjustment could be effected is People’s War — which I have little doubt is an inevitable consequence of the cultural demographic changes enforced throughout the West against the will of its peoples. It will happen, and it will happen when all or most of the six conditions for the successful prosecution of Peoples War fall into place. They are as follows…

1.

A society must be in a stage of evolution in which its economic and social structure is changing, and when its institutions and control mechanisms cannot cope with such changes — in short a revolutionary potential exists.

2.

A revolutionary situation develops.

3.

High-grade revolutionary leadership has emerged, and a sound organization has been constructed.

4.

Support of the people has been achieved.

5.

Geo-political factors are favourable.

6.

The philosophy of coordinated action on all the battlefronts is understood and applied.

…and the battlefronts of People’s War are:

Cultural/Spiritual;

Socio-economic; Political; International;

Military

— in that order.

Consequently, in view of recent subtle changes in the general mindset of so many of the long-indoctrinated — the ‘time of awakening’ as it may come to be known — this monograph has been written in order to examine in some detail the first two conditions for these are, arguably, hard by the door.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that they constitute the most important components of the struggle, the buried bricks and mortar of the foundations that will later be needed to support those who choose to make their stand. Other than that, only time and future developments will tell if this series of essays continues, or ends right here. The reconstruction of our way of life must progress one step at a time, as with any infant setting forth into the unknown.

And infants frequently fall.

The Revolutionary Potential

First and foremost a revolutionary potential must exist. It cannot be artificially created, for no revolution can succeed on the back of a conspiracy. If the potential does not exist, or is not seen to exist by sufficient numbers or the people, all proto-revolutionary activities, including any public debate and/or the formation of mutual interest/protest groupings, will be ruthlessly crushed by the enforcement arms of the system in power.

This, of course, is the usual fate of premature revolutionaries who have mistaken their personal enthusiasm for real revolutionary potential. We have already seen the first responses to such from the entrenched interests — the introduction of swathes of new laws designed to protect and excuse the invaders and keep them immune from accountability; our freedom of speech taken away from us by the very people we have appointed to guard it; the prosecution and persecution of any who dare to speak the real truths in the face of a barrage of government-institutionalised disinformation, category error and logic failure and the selection and promotion of politicised judges and senior police and military officers who have totally abnegated their traditional impartiality, to mention but a few.

Nevertheless, such things cannot be hidden from the public’s awareness forever. Thus, historically, whenever a sufficiently large proportion of the populace do become aware, revolts and revolutions are the means by which they choose to reclaim their identity either from foreign domination, or from repressive internal circumstances or — as is the case in Britain and continental Europe — from a malignant alliance of the two.

Nor does a revolutionary environment necessarily mean that the oppressed are openly enslaved, only that such a fate is recognised as an eventual objective of the oppressors. The enslavement is a subtle work in progress carried out one small step at a time. Nor does it necessarily mean that they are particularly hard done-by in economic terms, although, if they are, economic hardship functions as an accelerator of the revolutionary process.

A revolutionary fervour in a people is initiated when their social and political achievements have been so denigrated and deconstructed, and any further development has been so retarded by events out of their control, that they feel repressed.

Initially this is only felt acutely by a minority, and even for them it is a long, hard road to knowing they are repressed, to understanding how, and then to direct action. The gap between feeling and action can only be finally closed when condition three eventuates, when high-grade revolutionary leadership has emerged, leadership with some compelling philosophical, political or social agenda and the ability to develop and direct the necessary organisations.

To summarise: A revolutionary potential exists when the normal evolutionary process of a society has been stemmed or diverted over a long period; when a self-perpetuating hierarchy has retained control of governance over this period; when considerable changes have taken place in the economic base of society causing similar changes in social grouping; and when existing social and cultural mores are being destroyed in favour of new, alien ideologies.

The Revolutionary Situation

Revolutions do not occur where people are hungry and weak, as the chilling North Korean example illustrates so well.

The effort and sacrifice required for such an undertaking demand an amount of human physical and mental energy that is only available to those who are reasonably healthy and adequately fed and, also, because the principal requirement for the rise of a revolutionary situation is the fear of deprivation coupled with rising expectations.

I use the phrase ‘rising expectations’ in this context where…

(a)

economic life has developed beyond the point where all of a people’s energies have to be focused on day to day survival,

(b)

social awareness and educational levels have risen to a point where people can understand what is happening or, more accurately, what is being done to them,

(c)

a sufficient number of people believe that the system is confining their natural growth and leading them in a direction not of their choosing, and

(d)

there is a growing conviction that something can and must be done to change the system.

The second requirement is a state of community conflict where the expectations and the self-interested demands of different economic, political, religious or racial groups results in low- to medium-level conflict, riot and protest, invariably accompanied by a selective application of the law for the benefit of one particular group and to the detriment of others.

Thirdly, failure of the governmental system in that…

(a)

it is seen to be ineffective,

(b)

it consistently breaks its promises,

(c)

it consistently lies to the electorate, and

(d)

it is seen to be corrupt and wasteful of economic resources, and functions only for the benefit of itself and its close allies.

Fourthly, the failure of political initiative, which occurs when it becomes blindingly obvious to a significant percentage of the electorate that a solution through means of the ballot box is no longer a viable option, and they cast around for alternatives. This is the break-point in the revolutionary situation. By this stage, the third condition for people’s revolutionary war should have emerged — quality leadership and sound organisation.

And so, when all of the above conditions are met at the same time and place, it will begin.

It will be a time of trial for all, and its outcome will be indeterminate.

I say again, as I have said so many times before “Damn them all! Throughout the West successive governments have deliberately filled the pressure cooker, clamped down the lid and stoked a fire beneath. Now, driven not by the laws of physics but by the compelling pressure of territorial imperative, it is almost certain to blow.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Prologue as an epilogue;

In John Milton’s Paradise Lost the author describes the abortive coup d’état by Lucifer and his followers, the banished (fallen) angels who were contemplating making another attempt to seize Heaven. Moloch proposed formal, full frontal operations “Armed with hell flames and fury all at once.” But Beelzebub disagreed — he proposed something quite different:

“Thither let us bend our thoughts, to learnWhat creatures there inhabit, of what mouldOr substance, how endued, and what their power,And what their weaknesses, how attempted best,By force of subtlety.”

Whilst the scenario we in the West face is one where the roles are quite reversed, where the coup succeeded and once free men and women are the ones cast out of their heaven, Beelzebub’s suggestion remains our best option, our best hope. Thus when this dawning new year opens, so does a small door of opportunity. We stand on the threshold of a period wherein it will be possible, just about possible, for us to gather together in numbers, determined once and for all that we will not be herded into the slave pit of a new dark age by those ‘progressives’ who seek to impose yet more of their dysfunctional Multiculturalism upon us. We must resist with every thought and sinew their weapon of choice, that puling excrescence in our midst, Islam, which grows ever stronger and ever more numerous, acquisitive, demanding and openly threatening by the day.

These really are momentous times, and we must use them but wisely and with some courage. If we are to survive this onslaught, enough of us must make the effort, make the sacrifices, step forward, stand firm and seize the future for ourselves and for our children.

We must unite in like mind across all of Europe and the Anglosphere. We must become a functional Reconstructionist Movement, for if we do not, we will lose our way of life in its entirety, and night will descend.

Seneca III — January 1st 2012

Author’s caveat:

This essay has been compiled from an incomplete collection of notes, the earliest dating back to the time of The Satanic Verses debacle (when the true nature of the Islamic threat finally surfaced in the public domain in the form of the first book burnings on European streets since the time of the Nazis). Several of the sources it would have been courteous of me to cite precisely have been lost, lent or stolen. I cite them hereunder from memory, and incomplete in detail, for I suspect I have either plagiarised them mercilessly or owe them much for their breadth of concept and depth of scholarship:

65
comments:

The symptoms you observe are deeply disturbing, and we all - well most of us - share the diagnosis that we live in a "sick" society these days, troubled as we are by having allowed our political establishment to lower our defences against the virulent and violent parasitism of Islam.

And for sure, I share your view that some sort of cure, if indeed there is any, won't be found in official government circles, because these circles are really spirals if you look at it from a slightly different angle ;)

I have read many an essay by fine writers within the CJ community ("inchoate" or not), pointing out possible cures for the ills of our societies. Some of these writers have displayed a knack for "doomy" scenarios, while others sought solace in some form of restyled pan-Western nationalism. I've read about proposals to withdraw wholesale from civil society as we Westerners know it, while others are simply preparing for the inevitable civil war that won't take long to materialize. Some of these articles have elicited a response by "optimists" reciting their mantra of allegiance to a well-meaning but "misguided" welfare state. I must admit that I sometimes find the exchanges between "doomers" and "boomers" thoroughly uninspiring.

Some of the suggestions for a possible cure are no more than that, suggestions, but what I increasingly find troubling, is a certain undercurrent consisting of allusions to the collectivist spirit - with overtones of some contrived form of meta-tribalism - which i.m.o. doesn't bode well for the restoration of our freedom, which should be the ultimate and most fundamental natural right we're trying to defend here.

**

Now Seneca III says:

"And, with the death of democracy, the only mechanism left by which such an adjustment could be effected is People’s War"

I agree that it seems the only option left for the newly disenfranchized. Thought so myself for quite some time. Now, I'm not so sure anymore.

Sag says:what I increasingly find troubling, is a certain undercurrent consisting of allusions to the collectivist spirit - with overtones of some contrived form of meta-tribalism - which i.m.o. doesn't bode well for the restoration of our freedom,

Am I not understanding you? If we don't band together, person to person and state to state we will not be able to stop this onslought. Power is in numbers.What is your suggestion?Again, maybe I misunderstand you.

It is true that there is power in numbers...but those numbers are ultimately made up of individuals. A lone man armed with ideas that awaken and invigorate the spirit of individual liberty in others is mightier than a dictator who commands legions bound to his will only by promises of material security that cannot ultimately be kept.

That is to say, Sagunto is right to question whether collectivist organization is necessary in defending individual rights. Humans are, ultimately, individuals. You need to intensely condition them to make them members of a collective, you need only awaken them to their own nature to make them individualists. The overwhelming might of the state must be an established reality to impose the conditions under which humans will trade their freedom for friendly treatment by the 'authorities', while even a vagabond may speak words that powerfully appeal to the desire for liberty that can only be dampened, never fully extinguished.

The tools by which the leftists have undermined and usurped control of the Western nations are particularly suited to the nature of their aims. "Subtlety" is needed because if they were honest about what they were about and where it must lead (where they want it to lead), nobody would heed them for a moment. They need to infiltrate and gain control of the power of life and death, make it seems that resistance to their agenda is suicide, sway people by playing on their fears.

In a sense, Senaca has managed to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow in defining "revolution". Many of the conditions posited as necessary for a "revolution" only apply to revolutions against totalitarian governments willing to murder innocent people. Others assume that the revolutionaries are the ones intending to impose some collectivist vision innately repugnant to the spirit of human liberty.

I wish nothing other than that people be allowed to make an informed choice. My "revolution" requires only that truth be made accessible. This needs no organization (though people may decide to organize as a result), it needs no expectation of luxury (though people may learn how to better their material conditions as a result), it requires little in the way of "education" beyond a natural understanding of human relationships and desire for self-determination (though people may become better informed as a result), and it does not even require that people be convinced that anything they do can change the system, since they need only change themselves (of course, if enough of them do, then the 'system' will change).

I am not opposed to people choosing servitude and death...as long as they were at least plausibly warned that it would result from the actions that lead to it. I do not desire that anyone should be compelled to protect their lives and liberty...other than by strong desires to have them. Often, I have warned people of danger while actually hoping that they would ignore the warning (admittedly, this is quite evil, but who ever said I wasn't?).

I am willing to speak truth to power, but revolution is a matter of speaking truth to those who seem powerless. Showing them that they do have choices, and where those choices lead. Those who are really in power have generally already made their choices and understand the consequences, after all.

I am sorry Gentlemen, and Ladies, but the landscape shows the situation to be too far gone. The peoples that hve been allowed into Europe, and are being allowed into America, regard the fundamental tenets of Christianity as apostate heresy, worthy only of eradication of both proponent and literary source. In short, the situation is FUBAR. Jesus told Pilate His Kingdom was not of this world. We who are born-again into the family of God through Jesus Christ and his redemptive work should keep that in mind. Revelation descibes the judgment that is to come upon those of the world. Those who are of Christ will NOT be here. Remind your neighbor of that and plead with him, and God, for your neighbor's salvation.

"We stand on the threshold of a period wherein it will be possible, just about possible, for us to gather together in numbers, determined once and for all that we will not be herded into the slave pit of a new dark age by those ‘progressives’ who seek to impose yet more of their dysfunctional Multiculturalism upon us."

Multiculturalism is the least of Europe's worries. A capitalistic oligarchy has taken over Europe imposing austerity programs, degrading democracy, and all that's left is for one or two triggering mechanisms for the global power elite to impose a One World government.

Look, I agree with you that we have to fight for a common cause. My point was, however, that while binding together is indeed important, there's no need, at all, for collectivism in any shape of form (socialism, neo-tribalism, pan-Europism, welfare statism.. and what have you).

Replace "capitalistic" with corporatist and I second your comment wholeheartedly.

Of course, my small remark only applies if capitalism still refers to a genuinely "free market" (not in place anywhere at the moment, because of Central Banking), instead of it being used as just another political invective.

The (economic) system you describe so well, is a globalized form of fascism (which is a socialism, btw). Some of its protectionist aspects are covered by the term "mercantilism", but I still find corporatism the best way to describe the collusion between the monetary central planners (Fedishists) and the political elites, from whatever stripe (all support the tyrannical welfare state).

Much of what you say and what I suspect you are subliminally alluding to I agree with. And I will admit to having certain reservations as to what form the eventual resolution of our current situation may take – such events do not always, in their early incarnations at least, have a particularly good track record. The repressive instruments of one tyranny can be equally utilised, and often are, by another replacing it even though the secondary users did not set out with that intention.

You also may have hit the causative button on the head when you refer to such matters as ‘globalisation’ & ‘corporatism’, but you and I and others of like mind can only deal with their ramifications in a localised way, in concert. We really can accomplish nothing until we actively interface with other in our immediate vicinity in the hope that the effect will spread outward as ripples from a stone thrown into a lake, always attenuating but never completely dying until they run into a shoreline which, in due time, enough of them will reshape.

However, to do nothing in fear of the chance that what we do will not always or in its entirety be for best is to cast the status quo in stone and leave it totally unfettered.

I am minded of this:

He either fears his fate too much, or his deserts are small, who fears to put it too the touch, to win or lose it all. – James Graham, 1st Marquis of Montrose.

[Unfortunately Montrose was hanged for treason not too long thereafter, still protesting that he was a true Covenanter and loyal subject – a fact that was recognised after the Restoration when his reputation was rehabilitated.]

I did say that the immediate future is indeterminate and suggested that to shape it will take no small measure of determination and courage; I should have added “and there will also be setbacks and casualties, no small amounts of either”. Apologies.

"[..] but you and I and others of like mind can only deal with their ramifications in a localised way, in concert. We really can accomplish nothing until we actively interface with other in our immediate vicinity in the hope that the effect will spread outward [..]"

Localized.. checkIn concert.. check

Do nothing.. uncheck

We agree about the activist part and lots more, I reckon ;)Will you believe me when I say to you that, i.m.o., there actually is a way to combat the Islamization of our lands in an organized, peaceful and most importantly, civilized way without, and I repeat, without any bloodshed?

My problem, in the form of a fundamental dilemma, with different kinds of CJ-proposed cures has always been this: how do we fight Islam without empowering the welfare state apparatus?

You see, the nanny state really is a b*tch, creating the problem of the Islamic takeover by sponsoring mass immigration. The problems thus created are the "bread and butter" so to speak, of the welfare state managers and social engineers, working in service of those who seek to use Islam as a vehicle for eroding our traditional communities and institutions (family) that had thus far been able to escape the progressivist blueprint for an ordered society.

More than anything, my hope for the CJ movement was for it to set itself on a path to prevent empowering the corporatist welfare state machine while combatting the Islamic disease infecting our lands. So naturally, I opted for what appeared to be the only logical alternative, the Civil War scenario, presented here at GoV and other CJ sites. Your writings and that of El Inglès were most illuminating and, dare I say, inspiring, up to a point.

I'd like to express some heartfelt concern, however, that some in the CJ movement, who justly decline the demonstrably naive proposal to "vote our way out of Mordor", are yet pushing for some sort of post-national tribal form of collectivism, and I am fiercely opposed to that.

The ultimate foundation of our civilization i.m.o. lies in a free society, based upon the one fundamental, natural and God-given right of "self-ownership". Our tradition is that of freedom, properly understood not as "doing everything you want to," but freedom in the sense of not having to do or say what you don't want to do or say.

Perhaps I should write an article some day, and see whether it would generate some fruitful discussion here at GoV. In short, me thinks the choice between the "statist" and "civil war" scenario is a false one, in the sense that I really believe in a third option, largely left undiscussed in the Anti Islam Movement.

The first is the misconception that arises from the well meaning assertion that all men are created equal;

First... this is no misconception.

All men and women are created equally human.

Our conundrum is in defining what it means to be human.

Second... the referenced texts are great for the point being mad and are topical for the times.

There are, however, innumerable works I consider much more authoritative regarding this subject.

I wish nothing other than that people be allowed to make an informed choice. My "revolution" requires only that truth be made accessible.

Herein our problem. We must decide what is truth.

Think about this for a moment.

Then consider all the truth's that people embrace which contradict each other?

Who's Truth do we embrace?

Who is to tell us exactly what that truth is? or must be?

This is how tyranny is born. People deciding they know better than everyone else and seek to positions of power in order to force compliance with their truth.

Rebellion is the ultimate consequence of these efforts when those who disagree rise up against the tyranny.

This is the human condition, at least as far as written history reflects.

History also reflects that a nation is defined by it's borders, language, and culture. Borders and languages separating different understandings of what truth is, all in context of a unique culture of common ideologies among that selection of people.

What then happens when we break down borders, and mix languages? We end up with cultural conflicts that cannot be resolved without someone "dictating" a solution wherein someone if not everyone loses part of their culture, and in that their identity.

Sagunto said... And for sure, I share your view that some sort of cure, if indeed there is any, won't be found in official government circles, because these circles are really spirals if you look at it from a slightly different angle ;)

Indeed. Placing our Faith in government to solve our problems is what got us into this problem in the first place.

The U.S. is based on an ideology of people solving their own problems, wherein the government's primary job is to maintain order in context of our Constitution.

The U.S. government was never designed or intended to solve everyone's problems, personal or otherwise. Yet that is what we currently demand of it.

Our government is quite accurately a spiral reflecting the population. Ideologies spiraling from the people up through to the top tiers of public office and governmental power.

Herein, again, the conundrum we so often illustrate.

The populace demands the government do something for them, the government then strives to comply, but in so doing find themselves at odds with disparate peoples. That disparity agitates the populace they end up rebelling against the very policies they demanded.

steven davis: "Those who are of Christ will NOT be here. Remind your neighbor of that and plead with him, and God, for your neighbor's salvation."

YOU and 'believers' like you are a HUGE part of the problem because you apparently sincerely 'believe' that God is going to give you a pass on the 'good' fight against evil - and your belief affects your actions and (in)actions here on earth.

Let me ask you a question: If you are wrong, and God requires you to make huge sacrifices for God and also places you and your family in the middle of terrible physical earthly evil, are you still going to 'believe' in the goodness of God, or are you going to be a fair weather friend - like so many atheists who demand that God accounts for the evil on earth that man made - and, worse yet, allowed by sitting back like you plan to (in heaven no less) and watching other men be evil without stopping that evil before it gets out of hand? Yeesh!

1. The first is the misconception that arises from the well meaning assertion that all men are created equal; well, perhaps they are, but much as we would yearn for it to be so all men do not progress equally, neither spiritually nor socially, nor do they conduct themselves in equally reasonable harmony for each is the product of his or her own environment and nurture, their culture, and each the tool of and for their chosen system of interpersonal conduct.

Multiculturalism is the least of Europe's worries. A capitalistic oligarchy has taken over Europe imposing austerity programs, degrading democracy, and all that's left is for one or two triggering mechanisms for the global power elite to impose a One World government.

My own ideas about truth have more to do with prediction of the natural effects of one's own actions than with anything that can be imposed.

In other words, the more certain I am that I am right, the less need I feel to force events to turn out the way I predict.

In this view, it is those who have to impose their views on reality rather than simply state what they foresee who reveal a lack of certainty as to the truth of their assertions. The "true believers" are dangerous not because they truly believe but because they do not believe enough to sit back and let their truth stand on its own.

"Muslims look to Allah, and rely on their good works." The best works, according to mohammad, are to kill or be killed for allah, which alone ensure admission to islamic paradise, aka Club Med in the sky, non-haram harem.

I'm just a young "snotnose" from Holland, who's learning as he goes along ;)

Still haven't found out what "RE:" stands for in the middle of sentences, posted by some (perhaps it's something from mail correspondence, meaning "with regard to" or simply "reaction", I don't know). What I've learned is that i.m.(h.)o. stands for "in my (honest) opinion". I think it's ugly in a sentence, but functional. I always use it after I've written my comment in notepad, and paste it in to somewhat "dampen" my tone and give off the impression that, deep down, I'm in fact a modest guy ;)

I agree that the best and most 'true' way forward in dealing with this problem of islam is essentially non-violent. The way is mass education of what actually IS. Not what is my truth vs what is your truth, rather what is simply true, what actually IS. This is about shining the truth on what islam actually is and then amplifying that truth as brightly and as widely as is possible. This will lead to enough people 'getting it' that we could mount an intelligent, eyes wide open, powerful yet compassionate, response. Of course, if we amplify the truth about muhammad and islam, there will be bloodshed because the committed jihadists would go nuts. But with collective resolve, their actions would only highlight more clearly what they believe in and what their intentions are. This would bring more and more people to see what we here at GoV already see. As Osama bin gone said, 'people will follow a strong horse'. With backbone to spotlight the truth about islam and to not waver in spotlighting it, while at the same time, showing what we believe in (bill of rights, all are created equel, etc), we can be that strong horse. This would lead to a mass exodus from islam, especially if we provide a safe place where they can land. If we shine the light brightly, muslims will be rightly shamed that they supported and participated in this death cult. They would leave and be great allies. This scenario, however, can only take place once enough people know what we know. Herein lies the real battle and what we are all tasked to do. Will blood shed? Of course. Will civil wars happen in Europe and around the globe? Most likely. However, if higher truths, higher civilizations, are to prevail, the root of the victory will be in winning the war of ideas. Since our ideas and our civilization is better, we will win if we succeed in getting them out there!Bob

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups. Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history... Collectivism regards group action as more important than individual action somewhat independently of cultural context, and does not propose a system of government and civil life, as socialism does... Many societies contain elements of both collectivism and individualism.

I have read the Baron's statements many times that he does not agree with every single thing that every person engaged in the Counter Jihad supports. Individual opinions are just that, individual. The Baron has emphasized repeatedly that while he doesn't agree with every tenant an individual might espouse (that would be individualism on the part of the fellow CJ traveler) he also knows that we must band together on the main points. That would be collectivism.Collectivism is not a word to be feared or denigrated in this context. Rather, it is a force multiplier.

"I agree that the best and most 'true' way forward in dealing with this problem of islam is essentially non-violent. The way is mass education of what actually IS."

Agreed, educating the public is important. But it is not what I'm proposing as a "third way", to overcome the ongoing problem of Islamization. In short, my suggestion would be to explore the possibility of dismantling the monetary apparatus that underpins the Islam-enabling welfare state.

my suggestion would be to explore the possibility of dismantling the monetary apparatus that underpins the Islam-enabling welfare state.

Could you expand on this idea for me or, perhaps provide a link? I agree that the welfare state is one of the main catalysts that enables the islamization of the west, however I don't understand how one could 'dismantle the monetary apparatus' without collapsing the whole system. I figure that if we were sufficiently educated to understand the threat of islam and the tactics that they use to take us over, then we would, as a society, end the welfare state, at least for those who wish to destroy us.

I'm preparing an article on the subject, which I hope the good Baron&Dymphna will find interesting enough to publish here at GoV. So keep a weather eye on these pages, and I'm sure we'll meet again ;)

Sag

P.s. good suggestion to end the welfare state for our Muslim adversaries. I hope that, in due time, I can persuade you to at least discuss the benefits of ending the current system for all of us. I do mean to propose it as the only way for us to really defeat Islam, without even the need for everyone in society to actually be informed and opposed to this evil cult.

I have corresponded via comments here with Sagunto for years, and I think that Sagunto is a thoughtful well-meaning fellow so I am going to attempt to interpret Sagunto's comment about collectivism for the American audience. :)

The founding fathers designed the United States to be built on the foundation of individual rights (see Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights) and individual states' rights (see United States Constitution) to strive for good governance. The founding fathers understood the federal government to be a necessary EVIL - and thus granted extremely limited powers to the new federal government to provide a consistent rule of law based on Judeo-Christian concepts (Congress and Supreme Court) and national defense (President).

To prevent the federal government from attaining undue power, the founding fathers provided our new republic with a system of checks and balances via 1) the states 'checking' the power of the federal government, and 2) each separate branch of the federal government 'checking' the power of the other two branches.

The crux of the current problem in the United States is that, over time, the populace and leaders consciously decided to dissolve the system of checks and balances - thus leading to a corresponding dissolution of Judeo-Christian rule of law and national defense.

Now you may say, "Who me? What did I dissolve?" Well, average people who collectively decide to 'hire' our government to forcibly take the money of their individual fellow citizens to pay for various living expenses have a heavy hand in dissolving the Judeo-Christian rule of law and national defense.

In giving government leaders the permission to institute a federal income tax, the populace made eventual slaves of us all - for our leaders are easy to convince to take all of our individual money to give to 'collective' others - themselves first and foremost - all the while lecturing us about shared sacrifices. Ahem.

To me, the word collectivism has a very negative connotation because collectivism argues that group rights are more important than individual rights. Sagunto is saying that the welfare state is the problem whether the people who benefit are native or foreign.

Islam is but a sign - a symbol - of the moral decay of the West - and the lack of Judeo-Christian rule of law and national defense that leaves a vacuum that hordes of tribal Muslim immigrants and their many babies plan to fill with barbaric Sharia Law imposed on both majority - and minority - individuals via a 'democratic' Muslim collective.

Sagunto expresses a concern that, if Westerners form a collective Western tribe to fight the Sharia Law of the collective Muslim tribe, the Western tribe members will choose to govern with tribal law - and eschew the necessary emphasis on individual rights (married with individual achievements) that is the true defining basis for the greatness of the United States - expressed in the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of many individuals.

One example of Western collective governance is affirmative action which taxes some in order to give to others - based on their group membership rather than individual circumstances or accomplishments.

Affirmative action is fully compatible with Sharia Law which affirms the submission to Allah and legal rights of Muslim males above all else.

Affirmative action is incompatible with Judeo-Christian rule of law which emphasizes free will and individual merit.

Sag, the welfare state is the great problem that imported the Islamic state, but I agree with anonymous that the Islamic ummah will conquer the West unless the West undertakes aggressive action against the totalitarian ideology of Islam (i.e., completely ban all mosques, Muslim community centers, Korans, burqas, headscarves, Islamic symbols, Arabic signage, public prayers, Islamic public holidays, halal food, Islamic charter schools, Islamic revisionist history in textbooks, ignoring Islamic terror and jihad by law enforcement, Sharia Law in any form including family or financial, buying Islamic chairs at universities, Muslims in the American military, Muslim imams in the prisons, Muslim videos and web chat sites).

Hesp: The fairly recent adoption of the federal income tax started our descent into modern slavery - formalized by the Supreme Court ruling that public high schools may require students to perform 'volunteer' work - as a condition of high school graduation.

Democrats are positively thrilled at the prospect of requiring ALL young people to 'donate' a year or more of their young adulthood to the 'state' - at which time those young adults will be required to live in 'diverse' multicultural environments. I predict that a whole lot of female 'volunteers' will be raped (just like happens with female volunteers in the Peace Corps). Of course, all of those awful rapes will be chalked up to he-said she-said.

Now, Romney is a Mormon, and the Mormons require their young adults to 'serve' the Mormon church for a year or so. Do you think that a fake 'Republican' Mormon Romney-care-initiating President Romney would sign such a law into place?

Once young people can be drafted by the collective in peace time for a year, can it be two years, what about three, and so on?!

And, so we completely lose self ownership - and even worse for women - freedom of association. Obama's dad was known to believe that the state could take 100% of your income as long as the state provided you with benefits. That's SLAVERY folks!

I do worry about Romney. The service of Mormon missionaries is entirely voluntary, it is not a requirement in any sense...there is no benefit or position of being a Mormon that is not available to those who haven't served a mission (I believe this includes the high-leadership, most of those served missions in their youth but I think some of them are converts who never did). But any similar program run by the government (any government) would not be voluntary in any sense at all. The entire point of the government (any government) is to enforce behavior that cannot be left voluntary.

Romney, despite having worked in purely voluntary religious organizations, economically self-interested business organizations, and government; shows no understanding at all that there is an essential difference between getting someone to do something by moral exhortation, by paying them, and by threatening to kill them if they don't do it. He is prone to emphasize how he would use his business experience to run government more efficiently...but government is not a business in the traditional sense. The only actual product of the government is the threat of violence, backed by actual use of lethal force as often as necessary to make it clear that those threats are serious.

The idea that the ultimate foundation of Western Civilization is the natural and God-given right of "self-ownership" could be revised a bit. But for the moment I will decline to debate the exact statement of the idea and instead concentrate on the question of what it means for a civilization to be "founded" on any idea.

It does not mean that the entire society or every act of government "comports" to this idea, nor does it mean that everyone or even a majority believes this idea. What it means is that, in public discourse, the argument for or against any act is ultimately based on the truth of the idea. So, if "civilized" people generally argue that what they are doing is protecting people's ownership of themselves, or use arguments ultimately rooted in the principle of self-ownership, then the idea of self-ownership is foundational to their civilization.

Now, Western Civilization was never a monolith. "Self-ownership" is a fairly particular principle, and I doubt that it was ever general to the entire West inasmuch as it is not really central to any of the major contributing sources, Christianity, indigenous European tribal cultures, or Rome. The more general ideal of the West I would identify as personal responsibility for one's own actions. This has strong roots in Christian ideas about individual salvation through becoming a disciple of Christ, and is heavily supported by the "heroic" traditions of Europe and the legal traditions of Rome.

While the "comportment" of various nations, laws, and governments with respect to the practice of holding individuals accountable for their personal choices has varied considerably, we can see that this idea is fundamental because it was a primary source in the way that "civilized" people in the West used to publicly argue on behalf of their actions. I wouldn't hold it as an entirely unique idea, nor one completely absent in other cultures, nor as the only foundation of Western Civilization.

But in other cultures (and in most of the modern West), it is no longer a foundational value. Today we see an evolution of arguments in favor of personal responsibility, not as an end in itself, but as a vital means to some other end. I myself tend to argue this way, coming from outside of the Western tradition. I might argue that the principle of personal responsibility is an essential means to bring about greater material wealth in society, or to provide security against crime, or to pacify the sense of injured justice people are likely to feel, or whatever. But at that point it is no longer a foundational idea...it has been laid on some other idea which is the real foundation.

The problem with personal responsibility no longer being a foundational idea is that people can (and do) try to create arguments which bypass it. That these schemes don't work isn't the point, nobody would feel the need to even try them in the first place if they had to justify them by appealing to the principle of personal responsibility. That's the difference between a foundational idea in a civilization and one that is simply a possible intermediary value.

Of course, I argue for returning personal responsibility to its former place as a foundational idea because of the practical benefits in terms of making society more wealthy, free, just, and all of that. It is rather far from my own foundational idea (which is that good must be a conceptually positive reality, as opposed to evil which requires only the absence of good...and no I don't have space here to explain in detail all the intermediate steps). This argument for a civilization to be based on an idea that I don't myself accept as a foundation may seem contradictory on its face...but it is no more contradictory than living in a house with a concrete footing when you don't wear concrete shoes yourself.

A civilization, like a house, is just somewhere to live. You choose the foundation that best ensures it is a good place to live. I couldn't begin to build a civilization based on the ontology of evil...even if there were some point to doing so.

Thanks a bunch for your contribution and also for complementing @Lawrence's spot on observations about runaway government:

"The U.S. government was never designed or intended to solve everyone's problems, personal or otherwise. Yet that is what we currently demand of it. [..] The populace demands the government do something for them, the government then strives to comply, but in so doing find themselves at odds with disparate peoples."

What I found missing in this "bottom-up" picture of our Tocquevillian condition, was an answer to the question "but why?". Why are people demanding services from a centralized govt in the first place? And you provided the answer, which is the coercive seizure of property (i.e. money) by the state, in the form of the worst tax of all.This is why Frédéric Bastiat described the state as "the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else".

My focus, however, would not be on the income tax, but on a hidden piece of the welfare state apparatus which is way beyond the evil of the legalized looting, which is the personal income tax scheme. The income tax is, what, some 40% of the Federal tax revenue? Say the total was some 2.something trillion, then the amount of personal income tax collected would fall in the category of the 700 billion TARP bailout.Of course, this corporatist bailout of the politically well-connected was outrageous, but let me use a simple YT vid, to put it in perspective of the far greater monetary crime.

This, me thinks, is a nice visualization as to why I consider the stealthy tax scheme perpetrated upon the American people through the machine of monetary central planning, i.e. Central Banking, the far greater and far less understood danger to freedom.

Politicians with a burning desire to use "the Ring" of state power to "do good" (from their perspective that is), are not especially fond of taxation, because tax increases are unpopular and stand out immediately.

Far more difficult for the people to discern, is the way welfare states build up debt and monetize it through their Central Banking institutions. The results of monetary inflation, i.e. prices going up and the ultimate debasement of the currency, are, among many nefarious things, a hidden tax on the people, in orders of magnitude bigger than the income tax, which of course is an evil in and of itself ;)

Hesp -

See my reply @Rob. I'll try to address some of your concerns in that article.

Various anti-jihad writers have posited that 'whites' - highly dependent on the definition of 'whites' - I go with the 'you know it when you see it mainly because the non-whites are beating you up' definition. - anyway, various 'whites' should mass and form a break-away Western nation that has a majority of 'white' people.

Close on the heels of such ideas is the after-thought that such a 'white' society will cure other 'evils' - and forbid women voting, women working, abortion, and many other variants against feminism.

Such a 'white' society would be predicated on the collective idea that men should vote and work and decide the abortion issue BECAUSE men are men and women are women - versus any individual merit that affords each man special rights over each woman.

In addition, the collective idea behind a 'new' - really ancient - female restrictive society is the myth that women in current society are greatly favored over men and the scales need to be tipped to the opposite outcome.

Eventually, the Bible gets drug into these discussions - and people liberally attribute their own attitudes and opinions about men's and women's roles to God.

As much as I admire anti-jihadi Ann Barnhardt, she advocates for disenfranchising women. I have noted to Ann, and I will repeat here: When women are denied the vote, women and children are very vulnerable to predatory men - men who may vote!

In any case, a 'white' majority nation is a possible collective solution to Islam - a solution that might increase collective power of 'whites' while denying individual rights to women.

Anyone who would argue in favor of this option might notice that this option is similar to Sharia Law in which men are afforded a favored legal status to women and children.

Hey Egghead,While I appreciate your attempt to clarify Sag's statements, I have to tell you I think you are a bit over the top. To my knowledge, no "white" collective is advocating what your fear.Did you see my definition of collectivism? It really is rather benign.In addition, I have no more use for Sag as this was not the first time he has insulted me in the comments at GoV. The last time he did it I told him that I wouldn't sully this site by getting into a fight with him. I ment it.Maybe he has a problem with women commenting as they are rather scarce around here or, maybe he just doesn't like to be challenged even in the most polite way.In any event, I will no longer respond to what he has to say.Feel free to do so yourself but, I am done talking to someone that feels a need to denegrate me.

IIMO that the issue we talk about here is the greatest issue of my generation. I am not going to get into a food fight about it.

Hi Hesp: Disclaimer, I feel a bit like a college student wanting to study a bit more before an exam. :)

So, here goes: The 'rest of the West' has admittedly always had a serious problem with wanting and getting political, religious, and economic freedom.

The 'rest of the West' was always in a state of invading - or being abjectly afraid of being invaded - or being invaded - by neighboring countries and, sadly, even Muslim conquerors.

The 'rest of the West' was afraid of being invaded because invasion equaled eradication, slavery, or displacement for invaded people - the same results then - and in the two modern world wars - and today.

The apparent complacency of the 'rest of the West' to the modern Muslim invasion results from the need for oil to run modern life.

When Western societies controlled the flow of oil, the 'rest of the West' was bluntly honest about the true evil nature of Islam. When OPEC began to control the flow of oil (circa 1961), the largely oil-less 'rest of the West' embraced a new found respect for Islam as a means to procure oil.

"As of November 2010, OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world’s crude oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market.[6] The next largest group of producers, members of the OECD and the Post-Soviet states produced only 23.8% and 14.8%, respectively, of the world's total oil production.[7]" (OPEC)

In the future, when the oil (and money) dries up, so will Western respect for evil Islam. However, by that point, Muslims plan to use a 'democratic' majority to control modern Western societies via the enactment of Sharia Law codifying Muslim men as a favored legal class over Muslim women and children and non-Muslims - who are all treated as slaves by Muslim men.

So, the Muslim collective IQ may very well turn out to be superior to the Western collective IQ - depending on how you measure IQ which I measure as the ability to devise nuanced plans, commence effective actions, and achieve desired results.

Because history shows that humans are at huge risk of being murdered by their own governments, humans MUST select their own governments with great caution.

Your use of the term collectivism is disturbing. For purposes of clarity, you might consider using another word - like community or cooperation.

Your idea that collectivism is a benign concept is a testament to the effectiveness of unremitting Marxist propaganda touted in our public school systems and media.

Collectivism is an extremely scary and quite murderous form of human governance that is far easier for humans to adopt than to reject. Collective human governments have violently murdered far more people in a shorter amount of time than Islam.

"To view this double standard [that treats war casualties as more shocking than governments murdering millions of their own citizens via democide] from another perspective, both World Wars cost twenty-four million battle deaths. But from 1918 to 1953, the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed 39,500,000 of its own people (my best estimate among figures ranging from a minimum of twenty million killed by Stalin to a total over the whole communist period of eighty-three million). For China under Mao Tse-tung, the communist government eliminated, as an average figure between estimates, 45,000,000 Chinese. The number killed for just these two nations is about 84,500,000 human beings, or a lethality of 252 percent more than both World Wars together. Yet, have the world community and intellectuals generally shown anything like the same horror, the same outrage, the same out pouring of anti-killing literature, over these Soviet and Chinese megakillings as has been directed at the much less deadly World Wars?"

"As can be seen from Table 1, communist governments are overall almost four times more lethal to their citizens than non-communist ones, and in per capita terms nearly twice as lethal (even considering the huge populations of the USSR and China)."

"However, as large as the per capita killed is for communist governments, it is nearly the same as for other non-free governments."

My brief response here does not mean I do not appreciate your detailed post; just that I have no time now. But one thing caught my eye.

"...as large as the per capita killed is for communist governments, it is nearly the same as for other non-free governments."

Is that author lumping the West in with "other non-free governments"? That means the U.S.A. has killed as many of its own as Stalin and/or Mao? Where are the stats for that? That's some ingenious redefining of "kill" going on. If so, this is all a bit too Buchanano-Chomskyesque for me, I'm afraid.

Hi Baron: A happy accident to be sure because I am unfamiliar with Robertson. I am assuming that you mean the saying of "Take what you need and leave the rest" which I read somewhere and really loved. I guess that whoever I read quoted Robertson - unless Robertson was quoting that person. Hmmm. :)

Hi Hesp: When you have time, read R.J. Rummel's website. Rummel's conclusion based on his empirical research is that free governments (democracies comprised of free people) are significantly safer for their own citizens and less likely to start wars with other countries - along with other significant societal benefits including lack of famine.

You had asked for a definition of free versus non-free people so I referred you to Rummel.

My own idea is that the West has existed on a continuum of freedom with more or less at times. The 'rest of the West' has always had less freedom than the relatively new country of the United States.

The founding fathers conceived of the United States as a potential Utopia where past human governance errors might be rectified and then hopefully used as a model for good governance elsewhere in the West - and the world.

The United States is a GIFT of freedom in God's name from the founding fathers to humanity at large.

The founding fathers founded the United States on Judeo-Christian values because those values are the most successful at producing societies where people genuinely care for each other and want to live.

Although Rummel's studies support the concept that participation of many free people is the best form of government to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people, the New World World has promoted the idea that atheistic oligarchs shall legislate 'peace' upon the people of the world - whether the 'collective' mass of people want their highly restrictive version of 'peace' - or not.

The New World Order is comprised of powerful people who intend to commit their power to rule over others - for the benefit of the powerful people.

The goal of the New World Order is to enslave the willing people via social programs offering illusory 'benefits' that will be withdrawn after the people are subdued into slavery.

The assignment of slavery is very important because slaves may be made to perform tasks that free people would refuse perform for any amount of money.

As all Muslims well know, Muslim and non-Muslim women and children may be subdued and declared to be sexual slaves to Muslim men.

Islam is a CURSE of slavery in Allah's name from Muslim leaders to humanity at large.

Taking a closer look at the article which Egghead cited (War Isn't This Century's Biggest Killer, by R.J. Rummel), thankfully he acknowledges a "free government" category at all. Thank God for small favors. However, he claims that 831 thousand people were killed by these "free -- democratic -- governments". Then there's this telling detail:

"This figure involves the French massacres in Algeria before and during the Algerian war (36,000 killed, at a minimum)..."

If this Rommel (sorry, Rummel) character is going to blame the West for the deaths resulting in fighting a necessary and necessarily bloody war against the most fanatical and evil people history has known, then he may as well blame the West for defending the world from Hitler and Hirohito in WW2.

Sagunto: I am also going to post a comment here on the roles of the income tax versus national debt RE human slavery. Please check back.

P.S. RE, Re, or re come from the standard American memo form:

To: Sagunto

From: Eggy :)

Date: January 4, 2012

RE: My answer to you

RE, Re, or re have the same meaning. Each variant is an abbreviation for the word regarding. In researching this comment for you, I noticed that everyone seems to be using the word 'subject' instead of RE now, so RE may have confused a lot of people and needed to be replaced with 'subject' for clarity. :)

Ultimately, the personal responsibility of an individual in Christianity derives not from "ownership" of themselves in any conventional sense but from their belonging to God. This is expressed in the spiritual sense of being the children of God, and in the physical as the body being a temple (designed as a dwelling for the spirit of God).

In a certain sense, the role of keeper or steward of one's body and spirit can be considered "ownership" of them if we have no recourse to the concept of being in a position of responsibility for something which we must eventually return to the owner with an accounting for our care of it.

In this sense, the idea of "self-ownership" arises not out of Christianity directly, but as a way to adapt to an atheist viewpoint the Christian idea of being a servant of God charged with the task of protecting and improving that which He has placed in our care. Because the atheist does not acknowledge having received anything from God nor accept that it must be returned to God, self-ownership is a necessary intermediation for the concept of personal responsibility to make any sense.

Or, to put it differently, as the atheist recognizes no power greater than his own existence, that which rightfully belongs "to God" must belong to the atheist, the atheist being the ultimate and supreme mode of existence. Naturally, this has more often been used as a justification for the atheist to denigrate all other moral claims, but the adoption of the idea that each atheist is supreme only within his own sphere (adapted from the Christian idea of a personal stewardship) allows atheists to "live and let live" under the notion that they own their selves and can only own what another atheist does not claim as his self.

Still, while the idea of self-ownership is necessary to permit atheists to access the idea of personal responsibility, it isn't therefore part of Christianity or the other roots of Western culture. At best, one could make the argument that toleration of atheism inheres in the general tolerance of Christianity, and this eventually leads to the need for a philosophical accommodation for them to rationally participate in a society based on personal responsibility. But it was the atheists that had to come up with the idea of self-ownership, no Christian ever had a hand in denying that all men belong to God and are ultimately accountable to Him.

Democrats are positively thrilled at the prospect of requiring ALL young people to 'donate' a year or more of their young adulthood to the 'state' - at which time those young adults will be required to live in 'diverse' multicultural environments.

but I agree with anonymous that the Islamic ummah will conquer the West unless the West undertakes aggressive action against the totalitarian ideology of Islam

granada was taken back from the invaders in 1492; the islamic thug in chief was forced to allow religious freedom, security for people and the freedom to immigrate (selling property or carrying it with them). the islamic thug in chief and part of the islamic population left, the other part started jihad led from the magreb. they had to be kicked out!

Anonymous: Give your comments a nickname, and we'll be able to correspond more directly. :)

As we all know, the big problem is that the West is allowing Muslims to become fully integrated into the unelected - selected and appointed - halls of power.

With Muslims in charge of Western governments and courts - plus the flow of world oil - we will find it well nigh impossible to 'kick them out' - as the first Muslim victims in Medina and Mecca found to be the case.

Indeed, we may find ourselves to be forcibly converted to Islam at the barrel of arsenals of nuclear weapons that we actually gave the Muslims - via ceding ownership of NATO allied countries to 'modern' Muslim immigrant hordes!

I don't get the argument that "the welfare state imported the Islamic state".

The welfare state has been perverted by the Marxists and Capitalists that govern the West. The Marxists employ it to subsidise a steady flow of Marxist recruits via third world immigration, and the Capitalists use it to subsidise a low wages economy.

This *perverted* welfare state may very well have imported the Islamic State, but a *true* welfare state is one that cares for its own. The nation is a family - one doesn't cast out one's own children just because they've fallen on hard times.

A very thoughtful piece from Seneca 111, and from the number of comments, one that has got the tongues wagging. Seneca has articulated in detailed form what some of us may now be thinking; that the slow and collective destruction of the West is no coincidence, and is in fact, a program of subjugation against the citizenry by a self interested elite which must eventually be recognized for what it is, by even the village idiot.

The circles I move in would concur with every word that Seneca has deliberately placed in this article. His meaning cannot be misconstrued as anything other than a well informed message for the near future based on Western human history, a history that is replete with many examples of revolution, the most significant of course being the American War of Independence.

I believe the American Constitution to be THE guiding light of individual freedom within a collective society, a form of society which eventually becomes victim to excessive government by the hand of those who see their role as controllers and not team players. But, for every guaranteed freedom through constitutional law, there will always be those who view these guarantees as being a road block to their future political goals and will, given the opportunity, outflank those guarantees through introduced and unlawful procedures with the intention to subvert those individual freedoms considered as too extravagant for the 'ordinary' citizen.

The exercising of arrogance enhanced with a little power can so often lead to traitorous acts.

A point of clarification...while the Constitution of the United States of America was designed to permit for collective efforts by the states, it is fundamentally the case that the collective thus established is for the sake of ensuring respect for the individual. This is even more true of the ten Amendments which form the Bill of Rights.

Thus it is something of a confusion to state that America is a collective society as opposed to an individualist society. Of course all societies are collectives, but if the society recognizes the total good and freedom of the individuals in the society as superior to the good and authority of the society itself (which is fairly explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence) then it is clearly individualist rather than being oriented towards the collective.

This crucial distinction between collectivist and individualist societies, and the essential prerequisites of revolutions seeking to turn one into the other, are of significant import in any meditation on the general subject of what it necessary for a successful revolution. Collectivist overthrow of an individualist society naturally does not face certain dangers that individualist revolution against collectivist society are likely to face. For example, it does not require that "revolutionary potential must exist..." which "cannot be artificially created," since the individualist society will not abolish "any public debate and/or the formation of mutual interest/protest groupings," and they will not "be ruthlessly crushed by the enforcement arms of the system in power."

On the other hand, while collectivist revolution against individualist society does not have to avoid certain dangers, it also must lack certain advantages that individualist revolution against collectivist society naturally enjoys. All humans are, by nature, individuals who prioritize themselves and those close to them over "the good of society". Thus an individualist revolution against collectivism automatically fulfills a number of the prerequisites listed for the development of a revolutionary situation.

At this point, a major divide exists within the Counter Jihad as to whether to take a collectivist or individualist approach. The difficulty of mounting an effective collectivist revolution against an existing collectivism is a point of particular interest.

My analysis of the situation in Europe is that, although the people are more conditioned to accept collectivism, the conditions for successful anti-Jihad collectivism to achieve revolutionary success will not exist until the situation is much worse than it is today. There is also the question of the desirability of the anti-Jihad collectivism that is likely to emerge, it is certain to be significantly racist and jingoistic at least, something that most Europeans would currently wish to avoid.

Meanwhile, the potential for individualist revolution already exists in significant degree...as is shown by the fact that the existing collectivists feel the need to fight the individualist elements of the Counter Jihad by painting them as being anti-Jihad collectivists rather than facing them directly. The belief that individualist Counter Jihad revolution is not as possible or feasible as collectivist anti-Jihad is, it seems to me, largely a product of collectivist propaganda.

The welfare state itself IS the perversion that allows collective governance to overrule individual rights.

The welfare state depends upon a bureaucracy that must consciously AVOID ever solving human problems in order to insure its survival - which is the ONLY goal of welfare state bureaucrats.

Even better for the welfare state bureaucracy is to CREATE infinite human problems that increase the scope and power of bureaucrats - who quickly become a privileged class.

If the native population is less than completely disfunctional, then the welfare state will seek to create that disfunction via immigration with the goal of importing welfare state clients who arrive bearing their own disfunction - and also causing new disfunction to native populations.

All of that turmoil ensures that the welfare state will last until ALL of the money runs out and ALL possible debt is exhausted - with privileged bureaucrats skimming a large proportion of the money off the top.

What money, say you? Well, the money from the income tax that penalizes individuals who are functional by eventually taking 100% of their income (we're all getting closer to that reality) - and making them disfunctional, too! Just more clients for the bankrupt welfare state....

Now, the debt, well, that's the kicker, the infinite debt to fund various living expenses is the way that the welfare state ensures that even future generations will be slaves of the welfare state.

Remember the concentration camp saying, "Work makes you free."

Well, the truth is that owning the profits from your self-chosen work makes you free.

Capitalism is the greatest enemy of the welfare state because capitalism offers people the chance to be functional without patronizing the welfare state.

Marxism in all its forms (Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism) is the very definition of a welfare state where the few rule the many by telling the lie - first backed by benefits - and then by force - the lie that bureaucrats who rule collective governments 'care' more about the welfare of the people than other forms of government.

In reality, collective governments are killing machines - murdering more of their own people than any wars or other forms of government.

Marxist propaganda has infiltrated the American consciousness to the point that few Americans are even aware of their own indoctrination.

Rummel counts the sheer number of deaths due to war, genocide, and democide of all governments - and then compares the numbers to prove that free governments kill far fewer people than non-free governments.

It is a GIVEN that free governments engage in wars that kill people, but you have to count the casualties in order to show the benefits of living under a free government.

7. The Catholic sacraments of reconciliation, communion, and confirmation indicate the free will relationship that exists between God and individuals who freely choose to love God and strive for goodness.

8. Eventually, all souls will accept the righteousness of God via free will. Can heaven exist if hell exists? NO. Heaven and hell are mutually incompatible because God and good souls are unable to fully enjoy heaven without lost souls. When the final lost soul finds God, God will throw a huge heavenly party for Satan, the true prodigal son.

Certainly the distinction between self-ownership and accountability to God for the gift of life are not widely separate in their pragmatic application.

I was merely addressing the fact that there is legitimate reason, from looking at the documented history of Western thought, for challenging the assertion that the idea of "self-ownership" is a foundational value in the development of Western Civilization. The reality is that it appears only very recently...the principles of personal responsibility were not tied to any theory of self-ownership until very recently.

The Declaration of Independence, only a little more than two centuries ago, rests the rights of man not on any condition of inherent self-ownership but state them as being endowments of the Creator (presumably the same divine Providence referenced later, which was one of several terms referring to God). I personally see the argument for inalienable rights as being part of the endowment that humans receive from God, along with life itself, as being a more secure and logically defensible ground than the argument from (or for) "self-ownership", which is only preferable in one is not willing to accept the existence of God.

That simple tolerance of atheism is a logical evolution of the precepts of Western Civilization does not, in my view, lead to any necessity for basing the argument for inalienable rights upon less secure grounds simply because the better argument is objectionable to atheists. But of course the relevant issue in this case is simply that it is hard to show that "self-ownership" is a long-standing tradition in Western Culture when it is in fact a very recent innovation.

I think that the most repugnant issue with the principle of "self-ownership" is precisely that it contains no possible argument as to why people cannot legitimately sell themselves into slavery in exchange for something they value more than their freedom. On the view that we ultimately must answer to God for how we have treated the stewardship He entrusted to us, it is very clear that we do not have the right to sell ourselves (nor has any human authority to dispute God's ownership). But if humans are fully their own belongings, it is not arguable that they cannot dispose of their rights as they see fit. It is not even very clear that the transfer of ownership from one person to another need be fully voluntary in all circumstances.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

P.S. the claims of universal salvation I will decline to address as I do not see their essential relevance to any core aspect of the Counter-Jihad. Whether those who fail in their stewardship of God's endowment eventually must be saved or might never fully recover from the loss of privileges they could otherwise have enjoyed, it seems that the duty men owe to God in this life is unchanged.

I heard one expert express that a unique feature of Christianity is that, for the first time in history, Christ gave women the right to own themselves rather than be owned by men.

Henceforth, women who previously had been only 1) daughters owned by fathers, or 2) wives owned by husbands, could choose 3) a new option of the vocation of nun in order to escape a life of loveless arranged marriage imposed on them by men.

The right of men to be priests and monks also achieved the same aim of allowing men to escape a life of loveless arranged marriage also often imposed on them.

---

"With the birth of the Christian religion the doctrine of immortality took up quite a new position in the world. It formed the foundation of the whole scheme of the Christian Faith. No longer a dubious philosophical tenet, or a hazy popular opinion, it is now revealed in clear and distinct terms. The dogma of the Fall, the Christian conception of sin, the Incarnation of the Son of God, all the means of grace and redemption, and the priceless value of each human soul are connected in significance with this article of the Creed. As part of the Christian Faith this doctrine was one of the chief factors in establishing the equality of man and the liberation of the slave."

Off the top of my head, it is my opinion that God prohibits human slavery via 'Thou shalt not steal' and 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery."

---

I believe it was Socrates who said that all people have free will - even those people who feign to give away their free will. Thus, people who choose to follow an evil religion are indeed morally culpable because those people use their free will to choose an evil religion and its accompanying evil behaviors.

The argument that an evil person is 'just following orders' to be evil is unacceptable to Socrates - and, one presumes, to God.

Thus, if a person makes a free will choice to become a slave, that person is still their own primary master and bears heavy moral responsibility for their personal choices and behavior. Drug use is a great example where a drug user chooses to use drugs which then promote sinful behavior that is still the ultimate moral responsibility of the drug user.

But, in the end, I would argue that people may only choose to be free - and people literally cannot choose to be slaves. In other words, people may choose to be enslaved, but people may NEVER choose to be slaves.

True slavery is an external wrong that must be continually forced upon people by slaveholders. Once shackles are put upon a free person, that person is unable to choose to be a slave. The person simply is a slave.

BUT, evil people can definitely choose to be slaveholders with slavery being a continual sin committed upon slaves.

"This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me."

God's contempt for human slavery is the ENTIRE point of Exodus - Exodus which is also a source of the Ten Commandments. :)

The question of free will is an interesting one, but is not foundational to the question of self-ownership as we've been discussing it. Free will is a necessity of the idea of moral responsibility, but does not entail any ownership of a physical body. Instead, the idea that there is no component to a human being beyond the physical body is the foundation of most modern attacks on the idea of free will and thus moral accountability.

This poses an interesting problem for defining the concept of "self-ownership" as it relates to Christian thought, since the practical definition is taken to be ownership of one's body which (in Christian terms) is not really the self at all. It is merely an accessory on loan from God which must eventually be returned and exchanged for a new body.

So the Christian idea of a "self" that can be owned has little to tell us about the principle of "self-ownership" as it has become apparent in modern Western culture (even if there were definite scriptural support for the idea that this self owns itself...there is plenty of mention of the recalcitrance and stubbornness of the human spirit, but no mentions I can recall of its self-ownership).

That God reserves the right to dictate how we are to use our bodies (and our spiritual selves) by punishing us for treating them contrary to His commandments would seem to contradict any assertion of self-ownership that one might find in Christianity. We are certainly left free to act according or contrary to God's commandments, but the doctrine that our body is on loan and we will be held accountable for how it has been used would seem indisputable.

My understanding of the Christian roots of the idea of self-ownership might be improved by familiarity with any ancient Christian source that asserted that men owned themselves (or their own bodies) rather than having them on loan from God.

Commenter Tim: "When we say we own our own lives, and own property we are talking about *Political rights* (as you have mentioned here)… about our dominion over ourselves and our possessions that we have of right… from God… in respect to each other… yet does not negate God’s supreme ‘ownership’ of everything… like the Brittish system of Land holding where Everything is said to be owned by the Monarch, yet Subjects freely buy and sell, and rent the properties between themselves and hold * the rights over the land*. Politically speaking… in Libertarian terms… in social contract terms… Christians own their own lives and property. That is how the government ought to view its relationship to every individual irrespective of their religious association. This is equality before the Law. If a Person chooses to be ‘Redeemed’ by Christ…. ‘Purchased’ by his blood. ….”bought with a price ” …*They* voluntarily accept him *as their Lord*. Furthermore should they seek to give Christ his due they will *voluntarily* commit their bodies as living sacrifices… holy and acceptable unto God which is our ‘reasonable service’ (Romans 12vs1,2). Note the voluntary nature of this virtue! Note our Bodies are still referred to as ‘Ours’. We Literally *Possess* ourselves… control ourselves… even after Christ becomes our Lord. The act of submission to Christ is the act of self ownership voluntarily serving/ bowing to God. Thus the principles of Private property, and self ownership do not negate Gods sovereignty over everything, and that it is merely a semantic delusion to think that these principles are incompatible with Christianity.Thus social Laws regarding Private property and individual sovereignty are political/legal rights which the government and society are bound to respect… and we Christians endorse and respect these conventional laws because we understand them to be a secularisation that correlate with our theistic *principles of Divinely sanctioned custodianship* …. And do not negate Gods absolute sovereignty whatsoever. It is unnesasary for me to go through the Bible pulling out countless examples of self ownership and self responciblity. ‘Thou shalt not steal’… ‘Thou shalt not trespass’… etc are all examples of the scriptures endorsing Private property. God Told Abraham to go to the Land of Cannan which *he gave to him*… and his decendants…*for a posession*…etc."

Chiu: The website referenced below has a brief explanation that is pretty good.

"Because God owns us it does not follow that any other human owns us. Indeed, recognizing God’s ownership and lordship makes the idea of a human owner ridiculous. We may voluntarily submit to others, but in the act of submitting we are showing who the real owner is; one can only submit oneself if one owns oneself."

Well, I certainly have no objection to the practical concept of libertarian "self-ownership" as long as it is understood that one cannot dispose of one's own body or freedom as though they were 'simple possessions' but are instead obligated to treat them as "entailed" heritages.

But the fact remains, even while we may find nothing to object to in the concept of "self-ownership" if it is thus limited, the concept itself is novel. It is not foundational to the development of Western Civilization but is a late development to side-step the modern objection to resting our rights as being dependent on God. Christianity takes it as a fundamental moral axiom that Christ's ownership of everyone (not just His disciples) is so complete that whatever is done to any of them is done to Himself. But of course the same argument threads the moral weave of the Old Testament as well, that to injure or steal from one of God's people is wrong because they belong to God...not because of any rights they would have regardless of belonging to God. The universalism of morality in Christianity is always dependent on the universal ownership of all things and all people by God, it is never argued from any other universal quality of all humans.

The other roots of Western Civilization are just as devoid of any foundational idea of "self-ownership". Which is the point being discussed. The idea of "self-ownership" may be derived from, or compatible with, the foundational ideas of Western Civilization but it is not one of them itself.